Abortion discussion branched off of other topic :)

[CAPSmith]

Personally, I think that if the Christian faith-based turnout had been larger and more authentic (true to what their Christian faith teaches about the sanctity of human life), we would have had a different election. From my own faith, I know that Catholicism doesn't permit me to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. In my own state of RI, we have approximately 650,000 Catholics out of our just over 1 million residents. If they had all voted for McCain, it would have easily been a red state. Just something else to think about.

I suppose if you're a one issue voter that is the stance you'd take - must make voting really easy. Not that I'm "Probama" but Douglas Kmiec, former legal counsel to Reagan and staunce Republican (and practicing Catholic) recently wrote a book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama in which he argues that Catholics can indeed vote for him because he supports policies that "in theory" would reduce the number of abortions - which is also a Catholic way of thinking.

Let us not forget when abortions were a criminal act, there were just as many.

Although the Vatican, etc has expressed that it is immoral to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice because it creates a culture of death, you have to ask yourself is the criminalization of abortion a red herring or will it actually reduce the number or eliminate abortion.

http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Support-Asking-Questions-Barack/dp/159020204X

[SlightlyCatholic]

Catholics can indeed vote for him because he supports policies that "in theory" would reduce the number of abortions - which is also a Catholic way of thinking.

That's not a Catholic position..."in theory", Obama is for abortions and that's all a voting Catholic needs to know. It's not about reduction of abortions, it's about making them non-existant. "Reduction of abortions" is a concept used by those who want to placate pro-lifers while furthering their pro-choice agenda. You don't make compromises with a moral evil like abortion, you eradicate it by not voting for government officials who support it and making the act itself illegal.

Let us not forget when abortions were a criminal act, there were just as many.

Do you have statistics to back that up?

Although the Vatican, etc has expressed that it is immoral to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice because it creates a culture of death, you have to ask yourself is the criminalization of abortion a red herring or will it actually reduce the number or eliminate abortion.

The fact that the highest court in the land has stated that it's legally acceptable to kill a child in the womb can only further the pro-choice cause. We arrest people for committing murder and throw them in jail for several years, and since we as a nation decided to do that (a concept thought up long before the formation of our nation), people have decided it's probably not a good idea to kill each other. The same principle applies to abortion, should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

This is why a Catholic can't vote for a pro-choice candidate:

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

I'd rather not get into a theological discussion here, as it would disrupt the spirit of the thread. Perhaps this discussion could be continued privately so the thread isn't derailed?

[CAPSmith]

Do you have statistics to back that up?


http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2086/context/archive
Across Latin America, an estimated 5,000 women die every year as a result of clandestine abortions, according International Planned Parenthood Federation. An estimated 800,000 are hospitalized due to complications, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, based in New York and Washington.

But despite such legal risks, Latin America continues to experience abortion rates that are much higher than most countries where it is legal.

The abortion rates are highest in Chile and Peru (where one woman in 20 has an induced abortion). In Brazil, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, it's about one woman in 30, and in Mexico approximately one in 40. (In the United States, the rate is 21.3 per 1,000 women.)

Please note that both Chile and Peru's official religion is Roman Catholicism with 70% and 80% practicing accordingly.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html
Prior to the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, illegal abortion in the United States was common; some 700,000 to 800,000 abortions were estimated to have taken place annually in the 1950s and 1960s.

Of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million are illegal.

There's also this fact: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/federal-abortion-ban/reports/global-abortion-6480.htm

26 million abortions take place anually in countries where abortion is illegal. An estimated 20 million occur in countries where abortion is restricted (only to save mother's life) or illegal.

39% of women live in countries where abortion is restricted or illegal.

So 39% of women make up for 44% of all abortions? That would tell me that abortion rates are higher in places where it is illegal or restricted.

Of course we'll never have real figures since illegal abortions aren't reported, it's like asking how many illegal immigrants are in the US.

However, also note that since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 the number of abortions each year in the US has declined with a 25% decrease from 1990 to 2008 even though the number of unwanted pregnancies has not.

So I suppose you have a choice to vote for someone who can actually affect the number of abortions that occur, or pretend that what you're doing is actually saving lives. I suppose it's like dictators in Africa and their stance on AIDs prevention...

[SlightlyCatholic]

I suppose it's like dictators in Africa and their stance on AIDs prevention...


Am I reading this wrong, or are you comparing Catholics to African dictators? I don't see the connection. African dictators have killed and raped millions of people, so I'm not sure that's an entirely appropriate analogy.

A Catholic's voting or not voting for a pro-abortion candidate has nothing to do with a number's game or procured statistics. Rather, it is a teaching passed down in Catholicism that abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be supported or reduced. A reduction of abortion is simply a smaller number of murders rather than no murders at all. The killing of a fetus in the Catholic faith is (and I would argue universally) unacceptable and can't be supported in any of its forms.

Regarding your stats, which seem to be a bit skewed (from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform): All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.

Alan Guttmarcher and Planned Parenthood are huge resources for pro-choice arguments and data and are very rarely fair or factual.

Should we legalize cocaine, since people ignore the law and do it anyway? Maybe school bus drivers can do a line on the dashboard before they transport fourth-graders to their elementary school. After all, if it's legal, why not? Legality of an act provides a culture in which the act in question can take place, and that's never good.

[CAPSmith]

Am I reading this wrong, or are you comparing Catholics to African dictators? I don't see any need for that...

Not what I was saying at all. The AIDs comparison was showing that those dictators still choose to not educate their people about the dangers of AIDs or provide information about how it is transmitted or can be prevented. It's like teaching abstenence only. It removes reality from the equation.

A Catholic's voting or not voting for a pro-abortion candidate has nothing to do with a number's game or procured statistics (yours seem to come from pro-choice organizations whose job it is to make abortion look attractive).

The same could be said about pro-life organizations, however, they seem to have fewer numbers and statistics and focus more on the religious beliefs. Beliefs aren't facts.

I presented facts that show that in places where abortion is legal, the rates of abortion are lower than in places where it is illegal. You say that teaching is passed down in Catholicism, but places where 80% of the population are practicing Catholics have the highest abortion rates in the world!

A reduction of abortion is simply a smaller number of murders rather than no murders at all. The killing of a fetus in the Catholic faith is (and I would argue universally) unacceptable and can't be supported in any of its forms.

I agree with you, but provided facts have shown that the criminalization of abortion does not lower the rates just as it has been proven that removing the guns from the citizenry hasn't lowered crime rates.

Now, one of the things that I didn't investigate is if the legality of abortion is the cause of the lower rate or if it involves education prior to the abortion. In other words, are the countries that have legal abortions the ones that have comprehensive sex education in schools?

I think abortion is evil as well, but in the end, despite the laws we make we'll have to face the creator in the end.

[SlightlyCatholic]

You say that teaching is passed down in Catholicism, but places where 80% of the population are practicing Catholics have the highest abortion rates in the world!

Passing something down and following it are completely different. A teacher can tell a child to go home and do their homework but it doesn't mean the child is going to do it. That was my original point. If Catholics had voted according to the teachings of Catholicism, the resulting vote in my state would have been very different. Unfortunately, there are many Catholics who choose to be "cafeteria Catholics" and pick and choose which teachings they like and which ones they don't feel like following.

It's like teaching abstenence only. It removes reality from the equation.

If you don't have sex with someone, there's a ZERO percent chance of getting any STD, getting someone pregnant, or becoming pregnant prematurely. That's the best way to prevent all three of those things, regardless of what people choose to do with that information. Contraception promotes frequent and immoral sex, and just because people may use contraceptives doesn't mean it should be taught that that's the best way. Contraception is a faulty replacement for self-control and sexual morality, two things that aren't promoted very much in today's society.

[CAPSmith]

Tim,

If you believe in the existance in good, then you must also believe in the existance of evil. Evil is a real part of our existance and must be addressed.

I will not dispute that the practice of abstinence is not the best form of birth control and best way to stop the spread of STDs. But again, it ignores reality. In countries where abstinence only is taught there are higher birth rates, higher STD rates, etc.

Unfortunately, these beliefs aren't held by everyone (abortion is bad, etc) which results in us needing to adopt a set of laws that can mitigate the number of these immoral things from occuring.

I think that John Paul II does a pretty good job explaining why abortion is evil.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PQ.HTM

So the problem isn't whether or not it's illegal, it getting people to understand and believe that it is wrong - that can only be accomplished by getting the word out, one person at a time.

[Woody]

.Abstenince never worked throughout human history has it ?

Sex is a very powerful human need .As seen by how many people have done really stupid things because of it.Best you can do is equip people with infomation
so they have a chance of making the right choices ,and,Have access to health care when they mess up .
We have tried the victorian approach of not speaking about it and locking up women who have sex outside of marriage (never men though funny that!)
that didn't work .WE have tried the 60s hippy approach anything goes man ! that turned out to be stupid as well .
Guess a pragmatic approach of what works is probbly best .

[SlightlyCatholic]

.Abstenince never worked throughout human history has it ?

It works quite well when it's practiced. If something doesn't work with a significant amount of people, does that mean it needs to be taken off the table altogether? I have no problem teaching about AIDS and the medical information relative to that topic, but I do have a problem with public schools passing out contraceptives to kids during sex education talks. This says two things: a) We expect you to have sex, so there's really no expection that you won't and b) we just lowered the bar for you, so don't worry about being a sexually mature individual. I know several individuals who practice abstinance (and no, they're not other seminarians) and they haven't shriveled up and died from not having sexual relations before marraige. I just think our culture as a whole uses the word "realistic" to mean "mediocre" in regards to our standards for young people.

CAPSmith, thanks for the JPII link. Another good read of his is "Evangelium Vitae", or "The Gospel of Life".

[03_SHOOTER]

.Abstenince never worked throughout human history has it ?

Actually, abstinence works every time it's practiced.

. Sex is a very powerful human need.

Not to quibble, but it is not a "need", it is a desire, and like the desire to smack stupid people upside the head, it can be controlled.

.As seen by how many people have done really stupid things because of it.Best you can do is equip people with information
so they have a chance of making the right choices ,and,Have access to health care when they mess up .

OK, it's obvious that I missed a meeting someplace, but perhaps you can show me exactly where in the Constitution of the United States it authorizes the government to expend even one penny on "health care"? As for people messing up, that's when we get into that whole "personal responsibility" thing, you know, the one that nobody today seems to care about. :devil:

.We have tried the victorian approach of not speaking about it and locking up women who have sex outside of marriage (never men though funny that!) that didn't work.

Actually, it worked out quite well, as is evinced by the extremely small number of "unwanted" pregnancies until abortion became readily available. Back then, women KNEW that if they gave in to their animal impulses instead of acting like a sentient human being that the odds of them becoming pregnant were about 100%, so they simply didn't do it.

As to the reason the men weren't "sent away" is because the pregnancy was, and remains today, the responsibility of the WOMAN. It is HER body, and discounting cases of rape, it was HER choice to engage in an activity that she KNEW could result in HER becoming impregnated, so it is HER responsibility. If she didn't want to get pregnant, then she should have remained seated on a folding metal chair, with a dime between her knees instead of throwing her legs up in the air the moment the conversation dried up.

I will not entertain any silly arguments about "it's his responsibility too" either, because that's as patently stupid as holding the bartender responsible when you have too much to drink, blaming Hershey for your cavities, or your pencil for misspelled words. If he really is equally responsible, then why isn't it required that he give his consent prior to an abortion being performed? If he really is equally responsible, then why can he not compel a woman to have an abortion if he doesn't want the child? Simple, because it's NOT his responsibility, it's HERS, and hers ALONE.

.WE have tried the 60s hippy approach anything goes man ! that turned out to be stupid as well.

You mean the one that gave us 'legalized' abortion in the first place? Yup, stupid, and the fact that SCOTUS went along with that utterly fallacious piece of logic still makes my head spin. Murder is NOT a "privacy" issue.

.Guess a pragmatic approach of what works is probbly best .

Yup, and personal responsibility is the most pragmatic approach of all. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, it's just that simple.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I personally believe that Abortion is murder... I believe in adoption, not abortion, and I think that it's not right to end the life of someone that may have done great things.

[TruBlu]

It is to my belief that abortion under selective circumstances is appropriate, and in some cases necessary to preserve life. Circumstances where abortion is an appropriate course of action: if the child would be a product of rape or incest, or in the concern of marital health. I do not believe that abortion is proper if the sex is consensual and the resulting pregnancy is a cause of sexual malpractice or failed contraceptive use Those are the risks you take; its no different than contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

[SlightlyCatholic]

if the child would be a product of rape or incest, or in the concern of marital health.

TruBlu,

Would you mind explaining this statement? I'm interested in exactly what you mean by this. One teaching of the Catholic Church that's often hard to swallow is the teaching about abortion in regards to rape/incest. Basically, rape and incest are not grounds for killing a child. Why? There are a few reasons:

1) Just as the woman didn't ask to be impregnated, the child didn't ask to be born and therefore has no culpability in the actual rape or incest. What this means is that the child, while a product of a heinous act, is perfectly innocent.

2) Children born from incest/rape are just as human as any other newborn children. If the child cannot be kept by the mother, adoption is a viable option...at least the child gets to live.

3) Abortion of a child who is the product of rape/incest transfers the focus of the problem itself onto the child. The problem isn't the fact that the woman is pregnant but the fact that a man has violated a woman in probably the most greivous way possible.

In regards to marital health, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that but I'm interested to hear more.

God Bless,

Tim

[03_SHOOTER]

In regards to the "rape or incest" question, there are a few things to consider. As far as "rape", in cases of rape, one of the procedures commonly performed as part of the treatment of a rape victim is the administration of medication to prevent pregnancy. Even at the time of Roe v Wade (when antibiotics weren't as effective as they are today), the procedure was to administer a "D and C", which is a procedure in which the uterus is dilated (the "D") and curetted (the "C") or literally scraped out in order to prevent any infections that would endanger the life of the woman.

Now, I'm aware of the arguments about women who "don't report the rape" until days or weeks later, and frankly it's totally bogus. I don't buy into the whole "she was traumatized" excuse, and frankly in my research it's been shown that 90% of these "rapes" where the woman didn't report it until it was apparent that she was pregnant were actually instances of consensual sex where she failed to insist on appropriate protective measures, and was looking for an out for her own blatant irresponsibility.

In cases of incest on the other hand, it usually is well into the pregnancy before it is detected, and in these cases, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Tim and the Catholic Church. The fact of the matter is that a child born of an incestuous relationship often has severe physical and/or mental abnormalities, and this is not taking into account the fact that the vast majority of girls who have been subjected to this most heinous violation of trust are usually of such a young age that carrying through with the pregnancy can, and in many cases does, result in severe physical harm to the girl (which is one of the reasons that we as a society generally do not allow girls under 16 to marry).

Now, having said all of that, the fact is that "rape and incest" make up such a small percentage of the over 1 MILLION abortions that are performed in America each year that they're hardly worth mentioning, and therefore, that entire line of argument is nothing more than a Red Herring argument, and a rather poor argumentum ad misericordiam, or appeal to emotion. "AWWW the poor woman was raped", or "AWWW the child was molested..." (as the case may be) "..., and you mean old (insert your favorite ad hominem pejorative here) don't want to let her have an abortion". This tactic is usually also followed by the typical (and fallacious) argumentum ad populum, or appeals to popular opinion, where they try to impress you with the "popular support" of a "womans right to choose", when the fact is that the vast majority of the American people are, to one degree of another, opposed to abortion.

One other point that I would like to see one or more of you address, if you can, is the question of why should the American tax payer be compelled to pay for 'elective' abortions in the first place? BillyD has recently posted the list of resources I compiled for the use of the Forums, and I would be very interested to see if any of you can locate anywhere in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution where the Congress is authorized to expend the American taxpayers money, and use it to pay for abortions for irresponsible young women, welfare brood sows and crack whores, because in my nearly 4 decade study of the document, I have as yet been able to find such an authorization listed therein. Simply put, as long as abortion is legal in America, then they should have to pay for their own medical procedures themselves instead of saddling the American tax payer with the bill for their own lack of responsibility.

[TruBlu]

The rape and incest group is indeed only a small portion of the many many (1.21 million in 2005) legal abortions performed each year in our country alone. In fact, its less than 1-2% of both combined. With this said, and my personal opinion on abortion stated, I would only condone those 1-2% of abortions as rightfully. BUT, if a woman is aware of pregnancy and then WAITS, unacceptable. The procedure should be performed as soon as she knows that she may have a child. If that particular group of women are the only ones given abortions, the money provided for said operations would be decreased by 99-98% (that's simple logic), and the rest of that money could either not be taxed or simply distributed elsewhere.

Then again, if abortion is made illegal except for that particular group of women, illegal abortion rates would sky rocket. Usually these procedures would result in more harm than necessary and these women wind up in hospitals where taxpayers could be paying even more money than they started with for their hospitalization.

As to marital health, I mean if the birth or development of the fetus could harm or even kill the mother. I am not sure as to the complications that could result in death, but then again I am not an expert and quite frankly, as to the argument they don't matter. Hypothetical situation: A woman, already a single mother of 2, has been informed that the birth could/would kill her. The chance of the baby living through the birth is very high, but hers is almost minuscule. She decides to have an abortion instead of leaving 2 dependent children behind with a dead mother and facing adoptions. Not to mention any financial repercussions to follow her death where the children may be indebted.

[03_SHOOTER]

<snip for brevity> If that particular group of women are the only ones given abortions, the money provided for said operations would be decreased by 99-98% (that's simple logic), and the rest of that money could either not be taxed or simply distributed elsewhere.

Considering that spending money on anything not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is by default UN-Constitutional, I prefer that the tax rate be reduced.

Then again, if abortion is made illegal except for that particular group of women, illegal abortion rates would sky rocket. Usually these procedures would result in more harm than necessary and these women wind up in hospitals where taxpayers could be paying even more money than they started with for their hospitalization.

Firstly, the legality of abortion should be left to the States to decide for themselves, and the Federal government should have nothing to say on it in the first place. Having said that, if Roe were rescinded, and a particular State were to elect to not allow the procedure within it's boundaries, one of two things would happen; 1) these irresponsible females would simply go to a State that did allow it for their procedures, or 2) women would once again learn to sit on a folding metal chair, holding a dime between their knees, and tell their boyfriends NO!

Also, I think you have missed the most salient part of that particular argument TruBlu, so allow me to repeat, there is no authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to expend ANY of the taxpayers money on ANYONE'S "health care" at all, period. Therefore, even if "elective" abortion were to be totally outlawed, and a woman sought out an illegal abortion which resulted in some harm to her, then, if she lived, she would have just learned a VERY valuable lesson about personal responsibility, and accountability, as well as why it is so important to say NO.

As to marital health, I mean if the birth or development of the fetus could harm or even kill the mother. I am not sure as to the complications that could result in death, but then again I am not an expert and quite frankly, as to the argument they don't matter. Hypothetical situation: A woman, already a single mother of 2, has been informed that the birth could/would kill her. The chance of the baby living through the birth is very high, but hers is almost minuscule. She decides to have an abortion instead of leaving 2 dependent children behind with a dead mother and facing adoptions. Not to mention any financial repercussions to follow her death where the children may be indebted.

Again, an extremely small minority of cases, and therefore not worth mentioning, as in a clear case of clear and present danger to life of the mother, I don't see where anyone could possibly argue against it, and in fact, it would clearly fall under her physicians discretion.

[TruBlu]

Also, I think you have missed the most salient part of that particular argument TruBlu, so allow me to repeat, there is no authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to expend ANY of the taxpayers money on ANYONE'S "health care" at all, period. Therefore, even if "elective" abortion were to be totally outlawed, and a woman sought out an illegal abortion which resulted in some harm to her, then, if she lived, she would have just learned a VERY valuable lesson about personal responsibility, and accountability, as well as why it is so important to say NO.

No I realize that our Constitution does not authorize it at all. But the fact of the matter is, that it happens everyday and will continue unless our Constitution and its amendments are followed precisely and exactly. I don't see that happening to be honest. So with that in mind, I tried my best to offer a situation that best fit to what is actually happening. Do I agree with it? No, but I don't see it going away, so I try to offer somewhat of a medium.

Again, an extremely small minority of cases, and therefore not worth mentioning, as in a clear case of clear and present danger to life of the mother, I don't see where anyone could possibly argue against it, and in fact, it would clearly fall under her physicians discretion

Sorry man, but no matter how small a figure or percentage may be, I believe that it should be represented in full. I do not agree that a minority should be ignored and "not worth mentioning."

[TheLegalShark]

Now, I'm aware of the arguments about women who "don't report the rape" until days or weeks later, and frankly it's totally bogus. I don't buy into the whole "she was traumatized" excuse, and frankly in my research it's been shown that 90% of these "rapes" where the woman didn't report it until it was apparent that she was pregnant were actually instances of consensual sex where she failed to insist on appropriate protective measures, and was looking for an out for her own blatant irresponsibility.


You are talking about rape trauma syndrome, yes? Before you dismiss it so quicly in front of everybody I have to ask a few questions. Are you a practicing psychologist or psychiatrist? If so how long have you been practicing and where did you go to school? Now onto the good stuff. Where do you get the figure of 90%? Can you show any of us that statistic in any peer reviewed medical or pyschiatric journals? I also have to ask whether that research was done clinically or is it just from your experiences?

[03_SHOOTER]

You are talking about rape trauma syndrome, yes? Before you dismiss it so quicly in front of everybody I have to ask a few questions. Are you a practicing psychologist or psychiatrist? If so how long have you been practicing and where did you go to school? Now onto the good stuff. Where do you get the figure of 90%? Can you show any of us that statistic in any peer reviewed medical or pyschiatric journals? I also have to ask whether that research was done clinically or is it just from your experiences?

To answer your questions directly, the statistics came DIRECTLY from PEER-REVIEWED Medical and Psychological papers and journals. Oh, and BTW, if you're going to try to take that tack, it would behoove you to at least know how to spell PSYCHIATRIC (knowing how to spell QUICKLY might also be helpful).

Now that that's out of the way, why don't you stick to reading your law books, because you're OBVIOUSLY not ready for "prime time" here. If you were, you'd know not to even attempt to come out "guns blazing", trying to take on one of the Senior members of this Forum sounding like some spoiled, snot nosed little girl. Now, if you have something to add to the discussion, by all means feel free, but do NOT even think about showing your a$$ like that again, or you'll end up with it being ripped off and handed to you.

[TheLegalShark]

Very well, here is my opinion. Abortion is a private medical decision between a woman and her physician and it should stay that way. I am not saying there should be no restrictions, but I do not think that it is the business of the state, or the religious right to have any say it is wrong. A fetus is only a "potential life" until it has reached vialbility. As such I think that it has no rights until it reaches that point. Until the fetus reaches viability the woman should have the right to have an abortion on demand, and nobody else should have any say in it.

[03_SHOOTER]

No I realize that our Constitution does not authorize it at all. But the fact of the matter is, that it happens everyday and will continue unless our Constitution and its amendments are followed precisely and exactly. I don't see that happening to be honest. So with that in mind, I tried my best to offer a situation that best fit to what is actually happening. Do I agree with it? No, but I don't see it going away, so I try to offer somewhat of a medium.

I realize that the possibility of our government actually doing what they're supposed to be doing is somewhere between "slim and none", but in my mind that's because so few of our citizens realize what the Constitution says, and bother to inform their elected mis-representatives not only of what that responsibility is, but what will happen as far as their support for that mis-representative if the fail to start honoring their Oaths of office.

As to an interim solution to the problem, the first thing would be to suspend all public funding for abortions and require that they start paying for their irresponsibilities themselves. That step in and of itself would compel women to start being far more responsible for themselves and their actions, unless that is, they like spending their OWN money to correct their moral lapses.

Sorry man, but no matter how small a figure or percentage may be, I believe that it should be represented in full. I do not agree that a minority should be ignored and "not worth mentioning."

I fear you have misunderstood my statement in that I was agreeing with you. The number of abortions necessary today, with all of the advances in medical science, due to the potential loss of the mothers life are so minuscule as to be negligible, and therefore in the scope of the abortion debate are in fact not worth mentioning, and another Red Herring argument invented by the abortionists to distract attention away from the many inherent flaws in their entire line of "logic". As I stated earlier, in the extremely rare cases where continuation of the pregnancy presents a clear and imminent threat to the life of the mother, it then becomes a decision that the patient, her family, and her physician would have to make together, and should not become "talking point fodder" in the debate. Even in the years before Roe, any time the life of the mother was in danger, an abortion was not only perfectly acceptable, but was the routine course of treatment, no differently than removing a cancerous tumor would be.

[TruBlu]

I realize that the possibility of our government actually doing what they're supposed to be doing is somewhere between "slim and none", but in my mind that's because so few of our citizens realize what the Constitution says, and bother to inform their elected mis-representatives not only of what that responsibility is, but what will happen as far as their support for that mis-representative if the fail to start honoring their Oaths of office.

As to an interim solution to the problem, the first thing would be to suspend all public funding for abortions and require that they start paying for their irresponsibilities themselves. That step in and of itself would compel women to start being far more responsible for themselves and their actions, unless that is, they like spending their OWN money to correct their moral lapses.

I fear you have misunderstood my statement in that I was agreeing with you. The number of abortions necessary today, with all of the advances in medical science, due to the potential loss of the mothers life are so minuscule as to be negligible, and therefore in the scope of the abortion debate are in fact not worth mentioning, and another Red Herring argument invented by the abortionists to distract attention away from the many inherent flaws in their entire line of "logic". As I stated earlier, in the extremely rare cases where continuation of the pregnancy presents a clear and imminent threat to the life of the mother, it then becomes a decision that the patient, her family, and her physician would have to make together, and should not become "talking point fodder" in the debate. Even in the years before Roe, any time the life of the mother was in danger, an abortion was not only perfectly acceptable, but was the routine course of treatment, no differently than removing a cancerous tumor would be.

Sorry for mistaking your words there, sometimes statements are made, taken wrongly, and then attacked. I apologize.

I agree with you entirely, that most Americans don't know exactly what the Constitution says, or even has a good idea really. Hell, I'm one of them! But the difference is, is that there are people like you, who want to teach others and inform them of what is actually there. There are people like me and many others, I'd say most others on this forum, who wish to know and yearn for the knowledge. Then there are people who do not strive to develop this most important area of knowledge.

But back on subject. When you say there should be no public funding what-so-ever (at least that's what I'm gathering), I disagree. When I say rape or incest, I don't mean date rape where a girl gets a little drunk and then has sex and says she was raped. Oh no, I'm talking about the violent action taken against her, without any consent. The kind that involves struggle and constant "NO." Sometimes these women can be overpowered and have no choice. I believe that state or federal money (in essence our tax money) should be used in the treatment of these women, just as the same money is used for the imprisonment of the men that commit the crime.

[Billyd]

Couple of things here.

TruBlu, for a copy of the Constitution of the United States of your very own, go to http://wwrdheritage.org/ and click on the appropriate box in the lower right hand corner and provide the necessary information and receive your very own copy, pocket sized for your convenience, FREE, as in NO COST WHATSOEVER. Impress your friends and family with you new found source document for what your rights are (at least when you attain the age of majority).

Some of you have obviously mistaken Constitutional rights with your perceived rights. There are several resources available and I would suggest that if you haven't you review them prior to engaging in discourse with those that have spent a lifetime learning what those rights and the difference between them. One thing that you will learn upon further study of the Constitution of the United States, is that it does NOT enumerate your rights. It enumerates those things that the government CANNOT do. For example, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states quite clearly that:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Look at the first line, Congress shall make no law ... It does not grant you a right, it prohibits the government from taking those rights away. If you read further, you will find that the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically state that unless it is stated in the Constitution of the United States, it is specifically reserved for the states and the people. Therefore, since the Constitution of the United States does NOT mention abortion, the decision to prohibit or permit abortion is a STATE or PEOPLE issue, NOT the federal governments. In other words, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. While I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, I know this is fact because Article VI, clause 2 states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Questions?

[armysc_25b]

Questions?

Yes, how long does it take to get one of those pocket Constitutions? LOL

In all seriousness though, I am admittedly weak in much of what I have signed up to defend. I figure now would probably be a good time to get strong on it.

</hijack>

[Billyd]

Yes, how long does it take to get one of those pocket Constitutions? LOL

In all seriousness though, I am admittedly weak in much of what I have signed up to defend. I figure now would probably be a good time to get strong on it.

</hijack>

A couple of weeks if I recall correctly. In the mean time, I suggest you bookmark this site: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Full text and annotated.

[03_SHOOTER]

Sorry for mistaking your words there, sometimes statements are made, taken wrongly, and then attacked. I apologize.

Not a problem, we all make that mistake from time to time, which is one of the challenges of discussions of this type. Having to rely only on the written word, without the benefit of facial or tonal inflection clues, it's bound to happen.

I agree with you entirely, that most Americans don't know exactly what the Constitution says, or even has a good idea really. Hell, I'm one of them! But the difference is, is that there are people like you, who want to teach others and inform them of what is actually there. There are people like me and many others, I'd say most others on this forum, who wish to know and yearn for the knowledge.

That's what we're here for. Nobody knows everything about anything, and in fact even HairyEyeball and I have far differing views on the application of the Constitution on certain issues, and have agreed to disagree on those issues, but the one thing that I think that we (meaning the Senior membership) offer is a broad base of knowledge of the Constitution.

Then there are people who do not strive to develop this most important area of knowledge.

A painful reality. They're ignorant, and can't be bothered to be confused by the facts as they've already made up their (rather small) minds.

But back on subject. When you say there should be no public funding what-so-ever (at least that's what I'm gathering), I disagree. When I say rape or incest, I don't mean date rape where a girl gets a little drunk and then has sex and says she was raped. Oh no, I'm talking about the violent action taken against her, without any consent. The kind that involves struggle and constant "NO." Sometimes these women can be overpowered and have no choice. I believe that state or federal money (in essence our tax money) should be used in the treatment of these women, just as the same money is used for the imprisonment of the men that commit the crime.

Again, when we're dealing with rape, there are any number of medications that can be administered to the patient (victim) to prevent conception when she gets to the hospital as part of her treatment, so we're obviously not dealing with that, and as we are dealing with a crime, even if they do not have insurance to cover it, the city, county or state will cover it.

What I was specifically referring to (and perhaps I should have been a bit clearer) is "ELECTIVE" abortion, and for that, I am very emphatic that NO taxpayer money be used.

[03_SHOOTER]

Very well, here is my opinion. Abortion is a private medical decision between a woman and her physician and it should stay that way. I am not saying there should be no restrictions, but I do not think that it is the business of the state, or the religious right to have any say it is wrong.

Fine, and if the State has no say in it, and it is a "private medical decision" (as opposed to a NECESSARY MEDICAL PROCEDURE to SAVE HER LIFE), then neither the State nor the Federal government should be spending any tax dollars to provide a "private medical" procedure that is used to eliminate the rather blatant evidence of a womans complete irresponsibility.

As to the "religious right", I don't recall mentioning religion, so why do you bring it up?

A fetus is only a "potential life" until it has reached vialbility. As such I think that it has no rights until it reaches that point. Until the fetus reaches viability the woman should have the right to have an abortion on demand, and nobody else should have any say in it.

An interesting argument (not really, but I'm trying to "play well with others"), so if I understand you correctly, until a child is capable of living outside the womb, as far as you're concerned it has no "rights"? So would it be fair to say that "sentience" holds no weight in your estimation of when "life" begins? Using your logic, and the varying definitions of "sentience", a parent would be able to kill their child for, in some cases, up to the age of 4 with no repercussions then? To be honest, I've known people who were well into their 20's, and who failed to meet some of the most stringent definitions of sentience (one of them was in my unit!), so it should be OK to kill them at will with no repercussions?

Also Mr. "LegalShark", while you're being so concerned about a "womans rights", what of the Rights of the father of the child? I suppose that using your apparent belief that the decision is the womans alone, that you would by default agree that the father has no say so even if he wants to keep the child since "nobody can force her to be an incubator", is that correct?

What of the other side of the equation? What if the woman wants to keep the child, but the father doesn't? Should he not be allowed to COMPEL the woman to have an abortion, or do you maintain that it is in fact her sole decision?

If it IS your contention that the decision is hers, and hers alone, then following that line of logic, the woman, who has sole authority and responsibility for deciding whether or not to keep the child, should then have no legal standing to file a claim for child support if she elects to keep the child, against the father of the child, or to receive any financial remuneration from Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, AFDC, Section 8 or HUD housing, or access to any public health facilities. You know, that whole "equal protection" clause thing. After all, one cannot be held financially liable for the actions of another if they have no authority or responsibility in the decision making process that led to the situation in the first place.

Also, one final point, there is a "SpellCheck" feature in the upper right hand corner of the posting screen. It is represented by an "ABC" with a check mark under it. USE IT if you expect to have your thoughts and opinions seriously considered here.

[TheLegalShark]

Fine, and if the State has no say in it, and it is a "private medical decision" (as opposed to a NECESSARY MEDICAL PROCEDURE to SAVE HER LIFE), then neither the State nor the Federal government should be spending any tax dollars to provide a "private medical" procedure that is used to eliminate the rather blatant evidence of a woman’s complete irresponsibility.

I agree with that.


As to the "religious right", I don't recall mentioning religion, so why do you bring it up?

I never said you did. I brought it up because the religious right is one of the major players in the pro-life movement.


An interesting argument (not really, but I'm trying to "play well with others"), so if I understand you correctly, until a child is capable of living outside the womb, as far as you're concerned it has no "rights"?

That is correct. As I said earlier it is a potential life until that point. Prior to that it cannot live outside of the mother's body and functions as little more than a parasite. (Not the best way to describe a fetus, but the principal is nearly the same.)


So would it be fair to say that "sentience" holds no weight in your estimation of when "life" begins? Using your logic, and the varying definitions of "sentience", a parent would be able to kill their child for, in some cases, up to the age of 4 with no repercussions then?

To be honest, I've known people who were well into their 20's, and who failed to meet some of the most stringent definitions of sentience (one of them was in my unit!), so it should be OK to kill them at will with no repercussions?

Sentience does not equal being a living, breathing human being outside of the womb.


Also Mr. "LegalShark", while you're being so concerned about a "women’s rights", what of the Rights of the father of the child? I suppose that using your apparent belief that the decision is the woman’s alone, that you would by default agree that the father has no say so even if he wants to keep the child since "nobody can force her to be an incubator", is that correct?

The day the father carries a fetus inside his body is the day he gets a say in whether to keep it or not.


What of the other side of the equation? What if the woman wants to keep the child, but the father doesn't? Should he not be allowed to COMPEL the woman to have an abortion, or do you maintain that it is in fact her sole decision?

Again, he has no say in the matter. He does not have to carry a child in his body and then give birth to it.


If it IS your contention that the decision is hers, and hers alone, then following that line of logic, the woman, who has sole authority and responsibility for deciding whether or not to keep the child, should then have no legal standing to file a claim for child support if she elects to keep the child, against the father of the child,

I think that she should have the right to file for child support, but that it should not automatically granted. A judge should make that decision based on the facts of the situation.

or to receive any financial remuneration from Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, AFDC, Section 8 or HUD housing, or access to any public health facilities.


I do think the woman should be permitted to apply for social services if needed. Not so much for her, but for the child. It should not have to suffer malnutrition, homelessness, or illness because it's mother makes bad decisions or is unwilling to take steps to improve her lot in life.

[03_SHOOTER]

As I suspected, the typical highly hypocritical Pro-Abortion stance straight out of the handbook with no independent thought substantiating it.

OK, you claim that you're studying to be an attorney, so square your stances with the basic concepts of American law and the Constitution.

First of all, sentience. Again, if sentience plays no part in the discussion, what is to prevent any woman from legally killing her children at any time, even if it's in the 112th Trimester? Again, bear in mind the "equal protection" clause.

The day the father carries a fetus inside his body is the day he gets a say in whether to keep it or not.

That's WEAK, even for a first year law student! :devil:

If the father has no say in whether or not the mother keeps or murders the child, then under what highly flawed excuse for logic to you suppose she has any 'right' to even request child support from him? If it is your argument that he has no say so because he doesn't carry the child in his body, then extending that line of reasoning, he cannot be held financially responsible for HER decisions any more than a McDonald's can be held to account for your getting fat, or the manufacturer of your keyboard being held to account for your misspelling.

Also, kindly show us exactly where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution it grants Congress the authority to spend taxpayers money on ANYONE'S health care, to buy their food, to pay for their shelter, or in any other way care for them? it was HER decision to get pregnant in the first place, it was HER decision to maintain the pregnancy, it was HER decision to keep the child after it was born, therefore it is HER responsibility to take care of that child. It is NOT my responsibility to take care of her issue, and she has no legal claim to MY money to pay for HER decisions.

[SlightlyCatholic]

A fetus is only a "potential life" until it has reached vialbility. As such I think that it has no rights until it reaches that point. Until the fetus reaches viability the woman should have the right to have an abortion on demand, and nobody else should have any say in it.

If your mother took that stance and decided to have an abortion, you wouldn't be talking right now. Has that thought ever entered your head?

The day the father carries a fetus inside his body is the day he gets a say in whether to keep it or not.

The father helps to create the child. Why wouldn't he get a say in its living or dying?

It should not have to suffer malnutrition, homelessness, or illness because it's mother makes bad decisions or is unwilling to take steps to improve her lot in life.

So you're concerned that the child eats well, has a place to sleep, and doesn't get sick...but not if it makes it out of the womb or not?

P.S. This is a passionate issue for me, as I've spent many Friday afternoons at abortion clinics praying the rosary for the mothers inside and the children who may die there (it was legal, I promise). One thing I can say is that the mothers don't really HAVE a choice (or don't feel they do) when they decide to kill their child inside their womb. The expressions I've seen on many women's faces who just had an abortion weren't "Yes! I just won the lottery!" but rather, "What did I just do?"

[TruBlu]

Couple of things here.

TruBlu, for a copy of the Constitution of the United States of your very own, go to http://wwrdheritage.org/ and click on the appropriate box in the lower right hand corner and provide the necessary information and receive your very own copy, pocket sized for your convenience, FREE, as in NO COST WHATSOEVER. Impress your friends and family with you new found source document for what your rights are (at least when you attain the age of majority).

Some of you have obviously mistaken Constitutional rights with your perceived rights. There are several resources available and I would suggest that if you haven't you review them prior to engaging in discourse with those that have spent a lifetime learning what those rights and the difference between them. One thing that you will learn upon further study of the Constitution of the United States, is that it does NOT enumerate your rights. It enumerates those things that the government CANNOT do. For example, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states quite clearly that:

Look at the first line, Congress shall make no law ... It does not grant you a right, it prohibits the government from taking those rights away. If you read further, you will find that the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically state that unless it is stated in the Constitution of the United States, it is specifically reserved for the states and the people. Therefore, since the Constitution of the United States does NOT mention abortion, the decision to prohibit or permit abortion is a STATE or PEOPLE issue, NOT the federal governments. In other words, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. While I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, I know this is fact because Article VI, clause 2 states:

Questions?

Thank you sergeant I signed up right away.

So basically what you are saying that our government and Constitution grants us no rights. Instead it states that the Constitution cannot limit the rights of the people, and those rights are birth rights, that cannot be granted or denied, but always there.

What I was specifically referring to (and perhaps I should have been a bit clearer) is "ELECTIVE" abortion, and for that, I am very emphatic that NO taxpayer money be used.

Well then, I thought you were saying that you were opposed to any and all state/county/city money (just tax money really) to be used on any form of abortion. With that, I believe we are in agreement, at least mostly, I'm sure there are still differing opinions and views for every situation, its unavoidable.

As to the current argument, I'm stepping back. I couldn't hope to jump in the mix of a studying religious man, a law student, and a Constitutional junkie (not using this in a derogatory term, just the best thing I could come up with lol). Hey that sounds like the beginning of a joke...

[Billyd]

I am not Catholic but would like to be. I went to the March for Life in Washington.
I don't understand anything about why people are condoning bad.
This isn't a witch hunt. People who are on the opposite side of beliefs need friendly support and comforting love.
As soon as the guy became some President he went straight for the jugular. Releasing gay orders and abortion tolerance. He acts like its ok. He's attacked the laws and instutions that stand for right just to gain a buck. There is nothing right about abortion. Nothing is right about being gay.
He seems to get upset when indivuals gain favor from God being obedient.
Sad thing is he has preachers standing up for him.

What in the ???? I would suggest that you prepare your posts offline and have someone proofread them prior to posting. This post makes no sense whatsoever.

[Billyd]

So basically what you are saying that our government and Constitution grants us no rights. Instead it states that the Constitution cannot limit the rights of the people, and those rights are birth rights, that cannot be granted or denied, but always there.

That is what we, the "Old Guys," have been saying for a long time. It is just now, that some of you are starting to listen. And while some choose to remain uneducated, only because they will not see what is directly in front of their noses, does not mean that we will give up.

Read my thread in the Politics forum here (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=1460) and ask yourself: "If the Liberals (notice capital L) get their way, do you think that I could have posted that? As you can see from that thread, I have it posted at another location as well. I am also considering posting it at another location as well.

You have all heard the expression RTFM as it relates to computers, well, in this case when we say RTFM, we are talking about our Owner's Manual for hos to run this nation.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I believe he's wondering why people condone something that's wrong and begin to act like it's alright.

He's questioning the decisions to leagalize gay marriage and abortion...

(at least I think that's what he's saying).

[Billyd]

(at least I think that's what he's saying).

Need I say more?

[TruBlu]

It's just a bunch of jibba-jabba... Then again, maybe he's getting deeper than all of us could even comprehend... :lookaround: